TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [32]  1
2

Don't we already have that one? (page action crowner): Obvious Judas get usage counts

I rewrote the definition of Obvious Judas. The crowner says to "tighten up the definition" but I am not sure how to tighten the definition, so I might not have tightened it enough.

I have not yet deleted any examples. There is at least one example to delete: Edmund Pevensie (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) no longer fits the trope. Edmund is literally an obvious Judas, but the writer describes Edmund's meeting with the Witch (in chapters 4 and 5), and admits that Edmund and Lucy are moving to opposite sides of the Narnia conflict. In the Obvious Judas trope, "the writer has shown no evidence that he plans to turn evil."
 
Piffy
I think we need to take that part out. It's terrible. If a traitor is Obvious, then the author MUST have actually left, you know, at least some manner of heavyhanded foreshadowing, unless the definition of "obvious" has changed lately to something like "completely out of left field" or "only obvious to Seers".

edited 20th Nov '12 7:32:14 PM by Pig_catapult

Because underscores break everything: Working link to my Troper page
 28 nrjxll, Tue, 20th Nov '12 8:18:56 PM Relationship Status: Not war
[up]I think that's a bit much. "Evidence" is just the wrong way of putting it - it's more like "the author hasn't explicitly said the character will turn traitor".

Piffy
I think that'd qualify as The Reveal, wouldn't it? Wait, reread your post. That. . . seems like pretty poor form Word of God-wise. How often does an author actively spoil like that?

edited 20th Nov '12 9:00:11 PM by Pig_catapult

Because underscores break everything: Working link to my Troper page
 30 nrjxll, Tue, 20th Nov '12 10:37:44 PM Relationship Status: Not war
Not very, but as Kernigh indicates, it clearly happens sometimes.

(And personally, if a character is "obviously" anything, I think it's preferable in some cases for the author to go ahead and "spoil" it then it is to try and keep the reader in so-called suspense over it).

Piffy
Ah, yeah, I can see that. I'd probably up and say it, too, if the fandom had already figured it out and wouldn't stop asking.

edited 21st Nov '12 1:26:02 PM by Pig_catapult

Because underscores break everything: Working link to my Troper page
 32 Septimus Heap, Fri, 4th Jan '13 7:31:29 AM from Zurich, Switzerland Relationship Status: Mu
A Wizard boy
Ok, I've cleaned up the wicks and examples (moving bad ones to discussion) according to the revised description. Unless someone wants to re-rewrite the description, we should be done here.

To any Naruto fan in passage: I removed it because it doesn't sound quite obvious. Please readd it if you have a better written form of it.

The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Page Action: Obvious Judas
5th Apr '12 7:58:44 AM
What would be the best way to fix the page?
At issue:
Total posts: 32
 1
2


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy